[Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar-UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon

Thu Dec 29 19:27:56 CST 2011

Dear George

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Riegg Gambia" <icecool at qanet.gm>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa:
Biochar-UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon

> Hi Kevin,
>
> One question - are you saying that these 2 categories you're suggesting
> are mutually exclusive?

# Yes. The Stove User either: 1: Wants biochar, or 2: Does not want Biochar.
>
>> Should there be two fundamental categories for "Improved Stoves" as
>> follows:
>> 1: "Efficient Stoves with Low Indoor Air Pollution"
>> and
>> 2: "Stoves Producing Biochar"
>
> Not being a technical guy myself but helping to run a pilot in The Gambia
> all I know is what our target market wants:
> 1) Pay less for fuel for the same result
> 2) Pay less for fuel for the same result
> 3) to whatever....... same again

# OK, since the User does not want biochar, then any Stove producing biochar 
is inappropriate for his wants. He thus should not buy or build a stove 
producing biochar.

> Way down on the list:
> Have a good stove that is easy to work
> Have a good stove that is affordable
> Have a good stove that is safe to use
> Bring health benefits (IAP)
> Help saving trees
> Reduce GHG emmissions (whatever they are - in their perception)

# These are all good and reasonable objectives for a "good, efficient 
stove", when  biochar is not wanted.. A stove producing biochar when it is 
not wanted is a bad stove for that specific application. On the other hand, 
if biochar was wanted, then a stove that did not produce biochar would be a 
"bad stove.".

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> Cheers
> George from the Jungle - well.... sort of
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: <crispinpigott at gmail.com>; "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa:
> Biochar -UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon
>
>
>> Dear Crispin
>>
>> One definition of a "Stove" is "a device that consumes a fuel to produce
>> heat."
>>
>> As recently defined by the List Owner, "... This stoves discussion group
>> is for cooking stoves for developing countries, ..."  In most stove,
>> boiler, and furnace systems, efficiency is measured by the degree to
>> which the fuel can do the intended job. One of the significant efficiency
>> losses in a poor stove, boiler, or furnace system is "Carbon Loss", ie,
>> unburned fuel in the ash pit.
>>
>> Thus, if the Stove Owner wishes to minimize the requirement for input
>> fuel, a stove that produces biochar would be a poor choice, in that it
>> would consume more input fuel than a stove that burned the biochar.
>> Clearly, however, if the Stove Owner wants biochar, because biochar gives
>> benefits greater than the cost of extra fuel, then a "Char Producing
>> Stove" is "a good thing."
>>
>> Should there be two fundamental categories for "Improved Stoves" as
>> follows:
>> 1: "Efficient Stoves with Low Indoor Air Pollution"
>> and
>> 2: "Stoves Producing Biochar"
>>
>> For those interested in minimizing their fuel requirements, and IAP, they
>> would look for stoves in the first Category, but if they wanted biochar,
>> then they would look in the second category.
>>
>> Biochar is "a good thing" for those who want it", and a "bad thing" for
>> those who don't.
>>
>> Should not the Stove Buyer or Maker be given a clear choice of the stove
>> type that is best for his/her specific circumstances?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>> UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon
>>
>>
>>> Dear Friends
>>>
>>> 1. There is a reasonable review of the issues raised at
>>> http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/biochar-fund-giving-biochar-bad-name.html
>>> drawing the obvious conclusion that one project, good or bad, does not
>>> make or break a technology.
>>>
>>> 2. Readers will note from reports that the application rates were 10 to
>>> 20 tons per hectare. This is the same range I used in my calculations
>>> for the stove-produced char earlier this year. The indications are that
>>> if stoves are to be a major source for biochar applied to agriculture,
>>> the timeline for conversion/meaningful application is not 7 years as
>>> indicated by Biochar Fund, but considerably longer.
>>>
>>> 3. If the charcoal production rate was 12.5% and the source material was
>>> wood, they applied about 20 tons per ha, and they used about 1/2 the
>>> biomass as wood input to the charcoal kiln, it means they used 320 tons
>>> of biomass to treat a hectare (320,000 kg). If a family were to produce
>>> cooking stove char at twice that efficiency at a rate of 0,5 kg per day,
>>> it would take 320,000 days to treat one hectare, roughly a millenium.
>>> This is a statistically significant difference in the estimated time for
>>> biochar production.
>>>
>>> 4. As there are suggestions that as much as 50% of applied char is
>>> missing (not sequestered) after only one year in some soils, so there
>>> maybe a need to re-apply char. There may be an upper limit for the
>>> carbon content of biologically active soil (self-limiting). It seems to
>>> confirm strong variability in the results.
>>>
>>> 5. What is not clear to me is that charcoal application to soil has
>>> anything like a universally positive result, or that cooking stoves
>>> offer a meaningful way to produce the quantities required to see the
>>> beneficial effects, or that it would not be a great deal more efficient
>>> to make charcoal on site or alternatively, to just bury the biomass as a
>>> green manure fertiliser. Comparisons are required.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Crispin
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kevin C <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>> Sender: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:50:57
>>> To: <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
>>> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> Cc: Erich Knight<erichjknight at gmail.com>;
>>> biochar-policy<biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com>;
>>> <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Discussion of
>>> biomass<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>>> Unfulfilled
>>> Promises in Cameroon
>>>
>>> Quoting rongretlarson at comcast.net:
>>>
>>>> Kevin and several lists:
>>>>
>>>> 1. You said below: "# I have read the BFW Report. What are the
>>>> "Selected Quotes" to which you refer? "
>>>>
>>>> Answer: They were in the cite I gave about a dozen lines earlier (my
>>>> second line under "2"):
>>>>
>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833:
>>>
>>> # Thanks. However, I am reluctant to discuss selected quotes out of
>>> context. Selected quotes leave the door wide open for "cherry
>>> picking". If you could start by selecting a few of the quotes that you
>>> feel are most relevant, tehn we can focus on them in context.
>>>>
>>>> 2. I think our discussion on Rademakers and BFW would go better
>>>> after hearing your response to those quotes (of BFW).
>>>
>>> # I would suggest that neither of us are competent to discuss the
>>> correctness and fairness (or incorrectness and unfairness of the BFW
>>> Report, unless we have first hand facts. Mr. Rademaker and his work
>>> are being discussed in the BFW Report. Mr. Rademaker would have the
>>> first hand facts to discuss or rebut the BFW Report. What does he say
>>> on the matter?
>>>>
>>>> 3. I have more coming on this topic (which I put in a "Box" labeled
>>>> "BFW" - not "Biochar", and certainly not "stoves").
>>>
>>> # Anything that leads to "Truth In Biochar", and makes it easier for a
>>> Farmer to decide on the merits of Biochar utilization in his operation
>>> is of great interest to me.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>>> To: rongretlarson at comcast.net
>>>> Cc: biochar at yahoogroups.com, "Discussion of biomass"
>>>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Erich Knight"
>>>> <erichjknight at gmail.com>, "biochar-policy"
>>>> <biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 2:01:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>>>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon
>>>>
>>>> Quoting rongretlarson at comcast.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin and ccs:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. This is getting complicated - as the dialog has shifted from the
>>>>> BFW story on Africa/Rademakers over to the IBI material.prepared by
>>>>> Kelpie Wilson. My perception is that you are looking for specific
>>>>> information from both reports that were not intended and aren't
>>>>> there. So I see no reason to respond to your questions about
>>>>> Kelpie's IBI work .
>>>>
>>>> # This is not complicated at all:
>>>> a: BFW presents a report on biochar tests
>>>> b. "Defenders of the Faith" demonize BFW, rather than showing where
>>>> their Report is wrong in a factual, scientific, and professional
>>>> manner.
>>>> c: I made no mention of Kelpie's work.
>>>> d: You would appear to be clouding the issue, to avoid dealing with
>>>> the matter in a factual way. I am amused that you criticize me for
>>>> asking for information that is not in the report, and which the report
>>>> did not intend to convey (why the corn with biochar grew so well), yet
>>>> you do not criticize Erich when he assumes that it was the biochar,
>>>> and not other conditions, that made the corn grow so well. (more
>>>> water, fertilizer, organic matter, manure, compost, better soil in
>>>> general, better test management, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The BFW story was covered on the biochar lists about a month ago;
>>>>> see:
>>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833
>>>>> It is unfortunate that this story is started over again on the
>>>>> stoves list. It doesn't belong - there is zero stoves aspect to the
>>>>> BFW story..
>>>>
>>>> # You yourself are using the Stoves List as a way to promote biochar
>>>> production! How can you possibly say that the Article has no relevance
>>>> to Stoves? If the BFW Article has a valid basis, then it would suggest
>>>> that the potential for biochar is diminished. Nobody so far has
>>>> refuted their article in a rational manner. Can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I look forward to hearing your reaction to the selected quotes
>>>>> from BFW's report - which I presume you have not yet read.
>>>>
>>>> # I have read the BFW Report. What are the "Selected Quotes" to which
>>>> you refer?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes for a happy and Prosperous 2012
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>>>> To: biochar at yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 8:37:12 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>>>>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4710 - Release Date: 12/29/11
>